Comments on: Happy Earth Day-the Green Childfree

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:38:42 +0000

Hi Sara, You make a great point. The U.S. is the biggest consumer and the biggest carbon footprint per person….the stats on China may be what they are now, but China’s carbon footprint is on the rise and fast, as they “westernize” and become a growing global force. I admire your decision to be childfree; you put the impact of your actions on the planet and the people already on it first. It’s the farthest thing from being selfish–which is what childfree are so often inaccurately accused of being! ~L

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:42:07 +0000

I think one point that needs to made is that while people in the West (U.S., Europe, etc.) may be having fewer children than people in other countries, those children born in the West will likely have a much heavier carbon footprint because they tend to live longer and CONSUME way more. For example, the study cited by Hymas asserts that the long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one fifth the impact of a child born in the U.S. That’s pretty staggering!

I don’t know if people will consider having fewer children to save the planet, but they certainly should at least consider what their own childrens’ and grandchildrens’ lives will be like if our planet is unable to sustain a population of 7+ billion people. It’s a scary notion. I certinaly think about that, and that’s my main reason for being childfree.

By: Emilia

Emilia — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:40:04 +0000

I have chosen to have only biological child. I am theoretically open to adoption when my daughter is a quite a bit older, though I know adopting is a bit of a hit and miss, since there aren’t too many children available for adoption anymore. I have to be honest, though, and admit I didn’t make this choice for environmental reasons. It’s just the lifestyle that suits me best.

I also have to say I’m a bit sceptical of the overpopulation crisis. I remember back in the 1960s there was a book called The Population Bomb that predicted that life expectancy in the US would plummet, the Great Lakes would dry up, etcetera. None of that happened. So I can’t help thinking of this population talk as a bit alarmist.

Moreover, it seems like birth rates have dropped. In most European countries, for example, the birth rate has actually fallen below replacement level. And even in Third World countries women are having fewer babies because one, many of these women now have careers outside the home and two, they feel it’s better to give more (time, money, etcetera) to a few children than to spread their resources thin among more.

So yes, maybe my choice has helped the environment, but even that I’m sceptical of, and I really can’t say I made it for reasons larger than myself.